Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts, the court below that acquitted the victim B of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the 1.5 million won of a fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the ex officio judgment prosecutor, the defendant was examined ex officio, and the record reveals that the defendant was 2019.

8. The facts that the District Court sentenced 8 months of imprisonment for the crime of bodily injury, 2 years of suspended sentence, and 120 hours of community service order in the Jung-gu District Court on September 5, 2019, which became final and conclusive on April 13, 2020, which became final and conclusive on July 2, 2020, sentenced 6 months of imprisonment for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by the court at the same court on July 1, 2020, which became final and conclusive on July 2, 2020. Thus, the facts that the judgment was final and conclusive on July 2, 2020 can be recognized as having been sentenced to imprisonment for the crime of assault in this case and the above crime of bodily injury against the defendant, all of which are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer binding in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment is rendered at the same time.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On July 14, 2018, around 08:10 on July 14, 2018, the Defendant used the victim B face elbeling from the front of the Dju point located in Speaker C, who sought a consideration of E, etc. on the front of the Dju point in Speaker C, to assault the victim.

B. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had an intentional act of assault.

C. The judgment of the court below and the trial court are duly adopted.